Consumer Rights Act on White Goods

Beana_3

Hello, I'm hoping someone can help me with my query.

I purchased a new Bosch Heat Pump Tumble Dryer from John Lewis in November 2020 for £700 and about 3 weeks ago it stopped working and kept displaying an error message saying the lint trap was full. I ensured this was clean (and always do) and took all parts out (that it dictates to in the manual) and cleaned it thoroughly to ensure there wasn't some lint stuck somewhere hidden. That didn't work so I called in an engineer as it was out of warranty by 8 months and John Lewis said they couldn't do anything for me, given it was out of warranty.

The engineer who came told me the motherboard was faulty and that it would be too expensive to replace and fix and recommended that it be replaced. 

When I wrote to John Lewis and told them it was unreasonable for them not to help after less than three years they told me I should take out a costly Repair and Care plan as I didn't have a claim to have it fixed. When I told them I wasn't interested in a Repair and Care plan and mentioned the Consumers Rights Act they told me I needed a report from my engineer -which I managed to get stating it had an inherent fault.

John Lewis are now saying that I do indeed have a claim after reading the report, but that I am only entitled to a partial refund of £349.50 based on some calculation of the original price and what I was due on the remaining period until six years was up. 

My question is, is this calculation a fair one that a court would use or are they just trying to fob me off again and get me to accept it without a fight? I just can't see how an expensive machine such as Bosch, shouldn't last longer than three years -but perhaps my expectations are too high?!

Thanks

powerful_Rogue

Seems a reasonable reduction considering the age. You could ask them if they would consider a higher amount if you took it in John Lewis vouchers.

zoob

Seems a more than fair offer, heat pump dryers have come down in price the last couple off years, even Bosch models under £500
Appliances are like cars that they loose significant value in the early few years 

DullGreyGuy

JL use a simple months old / 72 as the percentage discount to apply and so by the looks of it the item was more or less exactly 3 years old?

The law says they are entitled to reduce the settlement to reflect the use you had out of the item but the law doesn't state how this should be calculated nor if there is a universal formula that applies for all goods or different things have different rules. 

We had fights with JL over freezer and personally didn't think their methodology was as bad as some others who were looking to pay its secondhand value (if it wasn't faulty) which feels less inline with what the law says. 

tightauldgit

Seems fair yes. Expected life on a tumble dryer probably in the 5-7 year bracket and you've had 3 years usage. So you would be able to get about half your money back. You can try pushing for more but you'd be unlikely to get significantly better if you took it to court and may get less. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

It surprises me people are so readily willing to accept such poor lifespans for expensive goods.

First link on Google says 20 years, 3rd says 10-15 and fourth 5-10. 

Cheapest on AO.com is £350, at £700 I'd be expecting longer than 6 personally. 

RefluentBeans

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It surprises me people are so readily willing to accept such poor lifespans for expensive goods.

First link on Google says 20 years, 3rd says 10-15 and fourth 5-10. 

Cheapest on AO.com is £350, at £700 I'd be expecting longer than 6 personally. 

Worth noting that just because something is more expensive, doesn’t mean it’ll last longer. If you’re paying for more features/more energy efficiency it doesn’t translate to more years of service. 

The fact there’s such a wide variety of times quoted means that there is obviously no clear cut timeframe. Would I expect to replace all my white goods every 6 years? No. But the average amount of time can vary. I think using the 6 years provided by the CRA is a fair measure for these things, and if you think it’s not then you can challenge it in a court. Unsure how they would go either way to be honest. 

screech_78

Having seen the outcome of the depreciation value tested in small claims, yes, the amount they’ve arrived at is reasonable. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

RefluentBeans said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

It surprises me people are so readily willing to accept such poor lifespans for expensive goods.

First link on Google says 20 years, 3rd says 10-15 and fourth 5-10. 

Cheapest on AO.com is £350, at £700 I'd be expecting longer than 6 personally. 

Worth noting that just because something is more expensive, doesn’t mean it’ll last longer. If you’re paying for more features/more energy efficiency it doesn’t translate to more years of service. 

I do agree but the requirement for goods to be durable under satisfactory quality includes consideration for the price

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/9/enacted

(2)The quality of goods is satisfactory if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of—

(a)any description of the goods,

(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and

(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection (5)).

and whilst extra features may be available ultimately it's a tumble dryer, looking at 2 on AO.com one for £389 has pretty much* the same key features as one for £599. *Cheap one can be controlled by a smartphone, expensive one has quick dry which the cheap one probably has too. 

If John Lewis think everything lasts 6 years you'd have to ask why you'd bother buying anything expensive from them if where functions are pretty much the same, their answer would be interesting.  

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

screech_78 said:

Having seen the outcome of the depreciation value tested in small claims, yes, the amount they’ve arrived at is reasonable. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10806301/Welsh-language-campaigner-refused-pay-60-parking-fine-written-English-WINS.html

Welsh language campaigner who refused to pay £60 parking fine because it was written in English WINS legal battle.

He didn't win because he was right (or wrong). 

Without the particulars it's not really possible to say if the method of calculation was viewed as reasonable or the customer lost due to something else  

screech_78

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

screech_78 said:

Having seen the outcome of the depreciation value tested in small claims, yes, the amount they’ve arrived at is reasonable. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10806301/Welsh-language-campaigner-refused-pay-60-parking-fine-written-English-WINS.html

Welsh language campaigner who refused to pay £60 parking fine because it was written in English WINS legal battle.

He didn't win because he was right (or wrong). 

Without the particulars it's not really possible to say if the method of calculation was viewed as reasonable or the customer lost due to something else  

No I completely agree. I’ve only seen two cases and both have went to small claims as they were unhappy with the amount offered under CRA. We won both times however as there’s no precedent set in small claims, it doesn’t mean that would be the case across the board. 

I was only pointing out that given what I’ve seen, I do believe the amount to be reasonable. Maybe a judge would disagree.